The political and the economic

It does begin to look as if Lehman 2.0 is not far off. This one will not be caused by greedy bankers taking reckless risks, any more than the first post-Lehman crash was caused by that. This one seems to be coming about because of a disjunction between economic necessity and what politicians are prepared to do.

It is difficult for democratic governments to implement draconian austerity packages. The government of Greece is discovering this, but it is part of a wider truth that governments which do this will face punishment by their electorates.

 There is, in addition, a more important disjunction between economics and politics at the EU level. It is that commitment to “ever closer union” makes some politicians baulk at measures that would imply a retreat from that ideal.
 
In a sane world Greece would have defaulted two years ago, left the eurozone and devalued. Their goods would have become cheaper to sell abroad, and foreign goods dearer to buy. The odds are that Greece might now be on the road to recovery. But if countries leave the euro, it implies a setback to the ‘inevitable’ drive to political union. Eurocrats have tried to paper over the problem instead, limping from one bailout to the next.
 
To those committed to a European super-state, it would be a disaster if some countries were to quit the euro. The problem is that economic reality says they must, and delays to the advent of that reality will make the crash much worse when it does break through. It will be the vanity of politicians that brings about Lehman 2.0, as it must.
6906
blog/politics-and-government/the-political-and-the-economic

Don't blame PFI

UK Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says that patient care is under threat at over 60 NHS hospitals which are 'on the brink of financial collapse' because of costly Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes. This is particularly disappointing to those of us at the Adam Smith Institute who campaigned for private financing of public infrastructure projects as far back as the early 1980s. What went wrong?

Back then, following decades of postwar nationalisation and state control, it was the familiar story. Building a new school, hospital, prison or road took ages, precisely because the whole operation was financed by the Treasury and designed, managed and often executed by state employees. Money would be spent on architects, designers, surveyors and all the rest, but the facilities would open only years or decades later. That was not just hugely inefficient, but costly too, since the government had to borrow for such long periods to find that finance in the first place. No private sector project manager would waste money like that. A publicly financed prison could take more than a decade to build; a privately financed hotel would probably be built within a year. The state needed some private expertise in the finance, planning and management of these big projects. Civil servants were plainly not up to the job, and taxpayers were bearing the cost.

There was another thought, too. If we could break the taboo and have public infrastructure projects financed and planned privately, then the private sector might come up with ideas for projects that were needed, but which the politicians and civil servants would never have imagined. Would a new road around a congested city like Birmingham, or a bridge crossing over the Thames, be welcomed by the public? Indeed, would motorists be willing to pay to use it? It was a promising idea, that public infrastructure could be built and charged for privately. And even if the users could not be directly charged – as in prisons or NHS hospitals – then the private sector could collect 'user charges' from the government. Then, it would be private developers, not taxpayers, taking the risk if the facility turned out to be used less than the private initiators had thought.

This initiative led to roads, prisons and other facilities being built, owned, and indeed operated by the private sector, with taxpayers enjoying the benefits of new facilities (which would have been unaffordable to the state) and private management. It worked. But there were two flaws. First, the civil service turned out to be a very poor customer. They would look at PFI proposals, but tweak them over and over, adding to the expense and lengthening the building period once again. They were hopeless at future use predictions. The private sector, which is used to tough bargaining every day, proved experts at keeping the risk with the government and making the state pay too much for its use of their PFI project.

And second, Gordon Brown corrupted the initiative and made it, in effect, a mortgage scheme. As Chancellor from 1997 onwards, he recognised that private finance could be brought in to build a whole new generation of schools and hospitals, and indeed roads and other facilities – which could be paid for as it was used, over the generations. He could get all the kudos of providing glistening state facilities and services today, but not on his own budget. It would be on the budget of future generations who would pay the bill. And an over-inflated bill at that, because the civil service had done such a bad job of commissioning these facilities and managing their costs.

So now we have schools and hospitals that local authorities and trusts cannot afford to run. Don't blame the PFI though, which remains a good idea. You know who to blame.

6907
blog/politics-and-government/dont-blame-pfi

Scrapping the NHS IT scheme

The UK government plans to scrap the £12bn National Health Service IT scheme, commissioned by the Blair-Brown administration, and which was supposed to join up the provision of health care, linking patient records, family doctors, hospital consultants, nurses, pharmacists, managers and all the rest. The announcement comes as no surprise – from its outset, the scheme (originally and over-optimistically predicted to come in at around £2bn) always looked  like a mess. Ask a consultant what a patient record should look like, for example, and you will get back a hundred pages of dense text, which will change every week as new conditions, treatments and equipment springs up, unintelligible to anyone but a specialist.

It was another example of top-down, centralist thinking. A Stalinist approach, one might even say. But the trouble with such approaches is that far too much information has to be collected, collated and processed at the centre. It is an impossible job.

The last government should have read their Hayek. Most complex human structures – language, to take just one – do not arise out of central planning but are built up through the millions of one-to-one personal interactions. We try to make ourselves understood to others, and from that grows up the words and the rules of grammar that we all use because it actually works. We don't plan it – we don't even realised we're doing it – but it works.

When the budget hit £12bn – there were fears that it could reach £20bn – I commented that there was a much better way of getting a joined-up, computerised NHS. There are around 1.2 million people working in the NHS in total, so for the same price tag, £1,000 a head, we could buy them all a web-enabled laptop. Within months, rather than the predicted decade, they would all be talking to each other and working up protocols to move information about just like language – or the market – does. Sit back and watch it grow. Indeed, for £1,000 a head, we could have bought them all two laptops – one to use, and one with all our patient records on it to forget and (as seemed to be in vogue with civil servants at the time) to leave in the train.

6905
blog/health/scrapping-the-nhs-it-scheme

Chinese censors pull “vulgar” talent show

The Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film and Television has suspended Super Girl, one of the most successful talent shows in China, for one year. They had been muttering for quite a while about it being “too vulgar” and “poison” for its 400 million viewers. You can draw your own conclusions from watching the Finals Promo:

The Chinese censors are particularly strict with programmes which they deem ‘Unhealthy”: earlier this year the censors banned TV dramas involving time travel. It is unclear whether Dr. Madsen Pirie’s science fiction books are equally banned from the Chinese market. In 2010 the SARFT introduced regulations on dating shows “to curb media hype of money worship”.

There are one or two people around who think the plug was pulled because the censors and the Communist Party didn’t like that Super Girl’s 400 million viewers were able to vote democratically for their preferred winner.

The news of the suspension of the successful American-style reality show will be well received by the state broadcaster CCTV which beams out less “controversial” productions. For a while the Communist Party has also tried to revive Maoist revolutionary mass culture, which is quite different from the individualistic “Super Girl” (the programme’s full name is Mongolian Cow Sour Yoghurt Super Girl Contest – including the name of the sponsors).

In an act of contrition, Hunan Satellite Television has promised to show ”civic” programmes instead, such as information about housework, public safety, and the promotion of healthy morals. The young fans of Super Girl are already looking forward to it.

A government protecting the public against itself? Politicians who do not like democracy very much? Such a relief to know that we live in a free country where such things don’t happen. (Irony? - ed.)

6903
blog/international/chinese-censors-pull-vulgar-talent-show-

Plain packaging for cigarettes

Richard White had an interesting piece on the Guardian website on Tuesday, concerning plain packaging laws for cigarettes. Mandatory plain packaging comes into force in Australia next year, and there is already talk of the UK adopting similar rules. The UK’s nanny-in-chief, Andrew Lansley, is said to be keen on the idea. But as White suggests, there is little evidence that plain packaging would actually achieve its stated aim, which is to discourage youth smoking and impulse buying of cigarettes:

No evidence exists, however, to suggest that anyone "impulsively" buys cigarettes, nor is there evidence that the policy would make any difference to smoking rates as no country has yet implemented it. Just as a teetotaller would not be persuaded to take up drinking just because WKD is colourful, there is nothing to suggest that non-smokers start smoking because the packet has fancy emblems. In fact, with large text warnings on the front and graphic pictures on the back taking up a large portion of the packaging, there is little left of the manufacturers' own designs.

A display ban in England has already been agreed on, which will come into effect from next year for large stores and 2015 for smaller shops such as newsagents, and if tobacco is being hidden then no one, child or adult, will be able to see the packets whether they are plain or decorated with flashing lights…

White also notes that plain packaging it likely to prove a counterfeiters charter (apparently “85% of cheap cigarettes sold on London streets” are fakes) and points out that cigarettes are already much harder for children to get hold of than alcohol, which may in fact be a greater problem.

But, of course, I very much doubt that the real goal of plain packaging laws is to protect children and stop impulse buying. In fact, it is probably just another measure designed to stigmatize smokers, and constantly remind them that the authorities regard their habit as shameful and sordid. You can say what you like about smoking and the tobacco industry, but I still don’t think this is how government should treat grown-ups. Nor do I think it a legitimate basis for policymaking.

At some point, you have to say that enough is enough – and I’d suggest we’ve long since passed that point when it comes to tobacco control.

6898
blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/plain-packaging-for-cigarettes

Growth forecasts no surprise

It should be no surprise that the IMF has cut its world growth forecasts. We had it coming. In the UK, the Office of Budget Responsibility's growth forecasts always looked wildly optimistic – 1.8%, they were predicting back in november. Now the IMF says UK growth will be a mere 1.1% in 2011, and 1.6% in 2012. Even that, I figure is on the optimistic side, and the IMF admits there's 6:1 odds of us going negative.

It's not just the eurozone crisis. It's odds-on that the euro will split asunder. Either Greece, and then other spendthrift peripheral countries, will be forced out – or Germany and its more economically solid neighbours might just leave them to it. There's little chance that Greece, which in the last twelve month has not sold one state asset or fired a single civil servant, will actually knuckle down to the latest 'austerity' package. Trying to save the euro by issuing a 'eurobond' looks a forlorn hope too – it would take years of treaty negotiations to establish. Setting up some 'European Monetary Fund' could be done more quickly, but taxpayers in the more solid countries like Germany would likely be rather grumpy about chipping in money just to keep bailing out the spendthrifts.

Nor is it 'low demand' caused by government cutbacks. Britain's public sector 'cuts' have amounted to just 0.7% in real terms this year, which hardly amounts to a 'reckless' slashing of public 'investment'. You can argue that the government should be stimulating growth by boosting its spending if you like – but where will the money come from? If it comes from borrowing, that just makes our debt hold deeper, which will not ease any business person's fears. The UK is already on track to add £126bn to its borrowing this year, which must alarm investors. And our households are the most indebted in Europe. If more spending is paid for through taxation, then we will all have less left in our pockets to spend, and businesses will get even gloomier. If it comes by printing money, well, that is the way to make our money even more worthless, that is, to more inflation. Inflation is already killing UK growth. People on fixed incomes are seeing their wages buying 5% less than they did last year. No wonder growth is slowing.

No, we are at last feeling the hangover after our twenty-year cheap-money borrowing and spending boom. I'm afraid that we just have to go through the pain of it. When we do, the economy will be much better 'balanced', though without the need for politicians to 'rebalance' it – people will just write off overambitious investments and start putting their effort and money into more realistic ones. But the fact that we are in for some quite unavoidable pain should come as a surprise to nobody.

6899
blog/tax-and-economy/growth-forecasts-no-surprise

Some good news, at last

Courtesy of the Cato Institute's Juan Carlos Hidalgo:

Mexican President Felipe Calderón seems to be experiencing a dramatic change of mind regarding his war against drug cartels. Soon after a drug gang set fire to a casino in Monterrey a few weeks ago killing 52 people, Calderón told the media that “”If [the Americans] are determined and resigned to consuming drugs, they should look for market alternatives that annul the stratospheric profits of the criminals, or establish clear points of access that are not the border with Mexico.” Many people interpreted that as a veiled reference to drug legalization.

Yesterday, during a speech to the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in New York, Calderón was at it again: “We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs,” he said. “But if the consumption of drugs cannot be limited, then decision-makers must seek more solutions—including market alternatives—in order to reduce the astronomical earnings of criminal organizations.”

After launching a military offensive against drug cartels that has resulted in approximately 42,000 people killed in drug-related violence thus far, it appears that President Calderón has finally realized that the war on drugs is a futile endeavor and that drug legalization is the only alternative to the mayhem.

Better late than never, I suppose.

6897
blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/some-good-news-at-last

The Tea Party tendency

In his speech at the Liberal Democrat Party conference yesterday, energy secretary Chris Huhne declared: “we need no Tea Party tendency in Britain”. My view is completely different – I would argue that a Tea Party tendency is precisely what Britain needs. But let’s be clear about terms. As Daniel Hannan wrote on his blog yesterday:

The Tea Party, perhaps more than any other contemporary movement, brings out the 'Yeah, but what they're really saying…' tendency. The 'tea' stands for 'Taxed Enough Already' but, if you relied on the BBC and the Guardian for your information, you might not know it. Many Lefties pretend – or perhaps have genuinely convinced themselves – that the Tea Party is clandestinely protesting against immigration or abortion or the fact of having a mixed race president; anything, in fact, other than what it actually says it's against, viz big government. The existence of a popular and spontaneous anti-tax movement has unsettled the Establishment. They'd much rather deal with a stupid and authoritarian Right than with a libertarian one. Hence the almost desperate insistence that the Tea Partiers have some secret agenda…

Essentially then, what I’m saying is that Britain would benefit enormously from a popular movement against big government. There are two reasons why such a popular movement is sorely needed. The first is that big government is leading us to ruin. The second is that the vested interests in favour of big government are so powerful and pervasive that it will take an awful lot to counter them. My blog yesterday touched on both these points.

The interesting question is why no such movement has emerged in Britain, when it has become so prominent in the US. One possibility is that Britons are simply less individualistic and more inclined towards socialism than their American counterparts. Sadly, and for whatever reason, there may be some truth in this.

Another possibility is that since our broadcast media regulations prohibit British equivalents to Fox News and US talk radio existing, it is much harder to spread the ‘Tea Party’ message, and much easier to maintain the statist status quo.

A third reason might be the complete dominance of the party hierarchies in British politics: candidates are carefully screened for conformity; party lines are strictly enforced in parliament; and anyone displaying too much independence is liable to be deselected and, to all intents and purposes, excluded from public life. Again, this makes it extremely difficult for prominent ‘Tea Party’ voices to emerge.

All this makes me suspect that Chris Huhne can relax: sad as it makes me to say it, British tea parties are likely to revolve around Earl Grey and dainty little sandwiches for the foreseeable future.

6895
blog/politics-and-government/the-tea-party-tendency